Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Yes to fairer votes!

The election's tomorrow (5th May) guys. Who's voting YES to fairer votes?
Here's some common misconceptions about AV explained courtesy of http://www.yestofairervotes.org/



The defenders of the status quo don’t want you to know what the change to AV really means.

They will say anything to stop giving voters more of a say, and defending the old ‘jobs for life’ culture at Westminster. They will say anything to defend a system that means:

* MPs can win seats with only 1 in 3 voters voting for them;
* MPs can have safe seats for life even though the majority of their constituents haven’t voted for them;
* MPs don’t have to reach out to secure over 50% of the vote in their constituencies.

But the truth is that the AV system is a small change that will make a big difference – making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and giving you more of a say. No wonder the old political establishment will say anything to stop it happening.

So let’s separate the fact from the fiction….

Myth 1) AV will cost us £250 million

The only piece of equipment you need to vote with AV is a pencil.

The No camp’s sums, like their arguments, simply don’t add up. Electronic counting machines aren’t an issue in this referendum.

Australia has hand counted its elections for 8 decades. The £130 million of make-believe machines don’t exist in Australia and won’t exist in the UK.

AV will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say. Short on arguments the No campaign are trying to claim we can’t afford change. After the expenses crisis we can’t afford not to.

Myth 2) AV is too confusing

Few people would be confused by this. Voters put a ‘1’ by their first choice, a ‘2’ by their second choice, a ‘3’ by their third choice and so on. The logic’s familiar enough to anyone who’s ever asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, “If they’re out of that I’ll have a lemonade.”

Some people have a very low estimation of the British public.

Myth 3) AV helps the BNP

The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a ‘No’ vote. Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3 voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.

The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by the back door is eliminated.

Myth 4) No one uses AV

AV is a tried and tested system. In Britain millions of people in businesses, charities, and trade unions already use it. Political parties use it to elect their leaders. MPs themselves use it to elect their Speaker and their officials.

When politicians are the voters – when they are electing their own leaders – AV is the system they choose. When you need a real winner who needs to speak for the majority AV is the go-to system.

Myth 5) AV means some people get two votes

No. With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will be counted.

If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had one meal.

Myth 6) AV means more hung parliaments

No. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments.

Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in 2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.

Hung parliaments occur if enough voters support a third party. AV gives voters a greater say over candidates in their constituency. How they vote is up to them.

Myth 7) AV means more tactical voting

No. AV simply eliminates the need for it. Why should we have to abandon the party we actually support, to prevent the party we least support getting in? The dilemma facing millions of voters is often characterised as the choice between “voting with your head or your heart”. AV allows people to do both.

AV offers an honest vote. It gives everyone a chance to vote sincerely for the candidates they really want knowing their vote can go further.

Myth 8) AV weakens the constituency link

No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger. Politicians like to talk about their constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy it a lot more than the voters.

Many of our MPs currently have a pretty dodgy link to their constituents. Barely a third of MPs can speak for the majority of their voters. AV strengthens the link by giving people the MPs they actually voted for. AV forces complacent MPs

Myth 9) AV forces you to give a second preference

No. You can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

You aren’t forced to vote for any candidate you don’t want. If you only want to support one candidate you can. Just mark an ‘X’ as you did before.

Myth 10) AV means you end up with the least worst candidate

No. First Past the Post just lets in winners that most of voters didn’t want. AV ensures a winning candidate has to work harder and go further to secure support from a majority. That’s what’s needed to be ‘best’, and may explain why politicians are so keen on AV when electing their own…

When Hollywood recently dumped First Past the Post for AV, they didn’t change the wording on the statuette to Academy Award for Least Worst Picture. They wanted a ‘Best Picture’ winner that could deliver on that promise.

Myth 11) But First Past the Post is a British tradition…

Our parliament is not a museum. There has always been evolution in our politics, and today AV is the logical next step - an ‘upgrade’ to First Past the Post.

The secret ballot, votes for women, and votes for working people were all innovations once, and met with opposition. These changes didn’t rip up the rule book, but they were necessary to improve the way we do politics.

Voters aren’t looking for a revolution. They’re looking for a simple change that preserves and improves on what’s come before.

Tuesday, 8 March 2011

Reactions to Tucson – The Inevitable Political Aftermath

The tragedy in Tucson, Arizona this January led to some interesting reactions and the usual cascade of news coverage. What I find interesting is how different these reactions were. Fellow Blogger Conform, Consume, Obey first got me thinking of this issue when he blogged two very contrasting videos from Obama and Palin.

Gabrielle Giffords

I had a look at the Guardian’s website and saw lots of articles covering the event. However, I immediately noticed a huge difference when I deigned to look at the Daily Mail. There are 2 articles on the fact that Gabrielle Giffords was Gwyneth Paltrow’s second cousin... (a point that the Guardian wisely didn’t consider relevant enough to write an article about) I mean seriously, overlooking the main issue just a bit! Just glancing at the headlines you can see the drama the Mail writers thrive on:
Police find photos of Arizona gunman, bizarrely posing with his firearm while wearing a red G-string, which were developed the morning of massacre
Gunman linked to white extremists: Loner charged after shooting top politician in the head and killing six
Compared with the more sober and respectful headlines of the Guardian:
Jared Loughner pleads not guilty to Arizona shootings
Gabrielle Giffords speaks one month after Arizona shooting.
Jared Loughner

With a story like this, the media always attempt to explain the horrific act by stereotyping the killer – deciding that he was obviously disturbed because he listens to rock music etc. The Pursuit of HappYness considers politics to be the most important factor in this tragedy, saying:
“It cannot really be disputed that [Loughner] was influenced in some way by Palin's ridiculous and hate inducing political campaign against the Democrats” 
and I too can see that the constant propaganda and hate is likely to affect people who aren’t all there to begin with, whereas Muncie Politics thinks that people have no right to blame the Republicans or politics in general,
“To place the blame on strong political debate is not only wrong, implying the possibility your words will somehow be connected to a mentally ill murderer is absurd. If you are conservative, Republican or in some way connected to the Tea Party you are to blame”. 
A certain degree of this speculation is to be expected, but surely it’s not the most important part of this story? Surely the miracle of Gabrielle Giffords clinging to life after being shot in the head is what the press should be focused on?

As usual though, it seems that political issues took centre stage, as people hit out at Palin over insensitive comments and her inappropriate use of the anti-semetic phrase ‘blood libel’, to quote her speech:
"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn”,
Sarah Palin

Damian Thompson says in the Telegraph (another respectable news paper) that Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" raises two possibilities:
"1. She's so ignorant that she doesn't know that 'blood libel' refers to the myth that Jews drink the blood of sacrificed children.
2. She does know what it means, and blurted it out anyway."
On the other hand, some people weren’t upset by Palin’s use of the term, and supported her in saying that ‘blood libel’ has far wider usage these days.
"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term”, 
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said in her defence.

Barack Obama

Meanwhile, Obama focused on offering comfort to the victims families and praying for the recovery of Giffords.
"Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bond together."
The BBC described his inspiring speech as ‘a call to moral arms’, and a speech ‘shot through with compassion and introspection’. His strength and humility brought tears to many in the audience. The difference in these reactions was quite apparent, even prompting an article from the Guardian: Arizona shooting: Obama speech and Palin's statement compared, and became a subject of an earlier blog of mine: Reactions to Tucson - Democrat Vs. Republican.
Jim Geraghty asks for some perspective in National Review:
"In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Palin used a phrase associated with one particular, egregious and historically recurring false accusation to rebut a modern false accusation seems like little reason for outrage. For perspective on what really is worth outrage, the services for 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green are tomorrow."
This being the point I really agree with.

What’s worse than Palin displaying her stupidity with a fairly offensive choice of phrase, in my opinion, is that this has become more important than the victims loss of lives. The disgusting thing about her speech is how quickly she brings it round to ‘me me me’ and POLITICS! I think Obama has the complete right attitude and reaction in this awful situation. As tempting as it is to stay on the fence with an issue like this, I think I have to side with The Pursuit of HappYness and most of the mass media in assigning some blame to Palin and her party. It seems that American politics has a way of driving people to the extreme, and it’s unsurprising when you consider the sheer amount of hate mongering that goes on.

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Reactions to Tucson - Democrat vs. Republican

This is me re-blogging something i found in a brilliantly entertaining blog called Conform, Consume, Obey (pointed out to me by http://lukeblogs.tumblr.com/), found here at http://conformconsumeobey.blogspot.com/
Honestly worth a read, very satirical and entertaining - i aspire to write like this. 

I realise that the storm surrounding this tragedy has passed, but i too urge you to compare and contrast these two videos - because quite frankly the difference is shocking! I was almost moved to tears by Obama's fitting and touching memorial to the victims, and praise and appreciation of the heroism showed that day. Whereas Palin's propaganda and political rhetoric is just insensitive.

Funny how the same intended message can come across so differently...

Barack Obama:



Sarah Palin:



I think you'll agree that the Republicans need to get their priorities in order...